I give up. It's too hard.
I tried to audit public-webont-comments formally...
I formalized many of the relevant message headers...
http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/WebOnt/webont-lc-comments.n3
(see the makefile for how I did that.)
I tried rules like...
:ThreadCloser :prefix "[closed", "[Closed".
{ ?MSG m:subject [ str:startsWith ?TXT ].
:ThreadCloser :prefix ?TXT }
=> { ?MSG a :ThreadCloser }.
and
{ ?LATER a :HandledMessage; :causedBy ?EARLIER }
=> { ?EARLIER a :HandledMessage }.
where m:references s:subPropertyOf :causedBy.
combined with... "if lc-comment-rules don't
establish that it's handled, it's outstanding"...
{ (<webont-lc-comments.n3>.log:semantics
<lc-comment-rules.n3>.log:semantics).log:conjunction.log:conclusion
log:includes {
:M m:subject :WHAT;
m:date :WHEN;
m:to [ m:mbox <mailto:public-webont-comments@w3.org> ]
};
log:notIncludes { :M a lcr:HandledMessage }
}
log:implies { :M a :OutstandingMessage; m:subject :WHAT; m:date :WHEN
}.
but I ended up
- trying to make up for the fact that Mike Smith's mailer
(outlook?) doesn't do message-id threading
- finding threads that fork into multiple messages
I thought about rules to
- enumerate all the reviewers
- look for unsatisfied reviewers
but that's complicated by sitations like Beckett sending
some comments on his own behalf and others on the WG's behalf.
My best idea at this point is:
- for threads that started before June but aren't closed,
reply to them so that they show up in the current month's index
(and so that the commentor knows we didn't blow them off).
--
Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/